Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Homes Bill

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It may interest members of the Committee if I remind them of the information that I gave at the beginning of our sitting this morning—that the birth was in progress. I can report that it still is.

Roger Gale: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for that, but I am happy to say that it is not a matter for the Chair. Clause 8 Home condition reports

Clause 8 - Home condition reports

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 11, in page 7, line 2, at end insert 
`, being a minimum of £500,000 in the first instance.'.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 37, in page 7, line 3, after first `the', insert `effective'.
 No. 12, in page 7, line 4, after `sellers', insert `, lenders'. 
 No. 13, in page 7, line 13, at end insert— 
 `(8) Sellers, buyers and lenders shall be entitled to bring proceedings in respect of a home condition report upon which they have relied in any transaction.'.

Nigel Waterson: I am even happier that the birth is nothing to do with me either, but we wish all participants well, of course.
 The rest of my speech to amendment No. 11 will be brief, for reasons that I shall explain, and then my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) will deploy some of the heavy artillery that I originally intended to bring to bear. I apologise in advance to you, Mr. Gale, and to the Minister and the rest of the Committee, as I shall have to go to the Chamber, where there will shortly be some other business on which I am required. 
 I had more or less finished speaking to amendment No. 11, and had referred to points made by organisations such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders. I hope that the Minister is in a better frame of mind this afternoon because, to judge from some of the phone calls that my office has had since this morning, he managed to upset just about everybody involved in the property and conveyancing business. I suspect that his punishment, fittingly, will be many extra briefings for us to take him through in the rest of our debates. 
 Our point was simple. Those who draw up the home condition reports, whatever one's views about their qualifications, should have full indemnity cover if they get it wrong. Such provision should be in the Bill, but we are open to persuasion on whether a specific amount should be mentioned, although it should certainly be covered in regulations. 
 Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 focus on what lawyers call the privity point. The Minister referred to the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which may indeed have the answer to my points. We want to ensure absolutely that sellers, buyers and lenders will all have rights to bring proceedings when they have relied on a home condition report that turns out to be in some way defective, and when some actionable negligence has caused that. People should be able to rely on the report, knowing that they will have redress if there is a problem. 
 According to the Law Society, as the law stands it is not clear who, other than the seller, could be certain of being able to secure compensation if the report were defective. A lender and a buyer could be reluctant to rely on a report if they had no redress in the event of it being defective. The Law Society says that it is essential to make it clear to whom the producer of a report on a property could be liable. 
 The issue is fairly straightforward. The Minister may feel that he has a complete answer to it, and I look forward not to hearing it, but to reading it.

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has for once, with the greatest respect to him, done us a service by probing the important issue of privity of contract, in which I take an interest. I want to take a few minutes to explore the subject, in the expectation that my hon. Friend the Minister will elucidate matters a little.
 As a lawyer, I have had experience of dealing with what we describe as surveyor's negligence cases, and this is an issue that often arises in practice. Who can sue? Following the case of Smith and Bush, the position prior to the coming into force of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 was that, while there was no privity of contract between a buyer and the party who had prepared a valuation report for the lender or the building society, very often the buyer was able to sue in negligence—not in contract—where it could be established that he had relied upon the valuation report to his detriment. That has been an established principle, certainly when the transaction concerns what could be described as a low-value or modestly priced property. 
 However, it seems that we need to look at the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to it in his reply. It has extended rights to third parties to be able to sue upon a contract in their own right. Section 1(1)(a) of the Act says that a third party may enforce a term of the contract—I believe that we are talking about the home condition report—if it 
expressly provides that he may. 
Section 1(3) goes on to say that the 
third party has to be expressly identified 
if not in name, he has to be identified as belonging to a particular class. Is it the intention that buyers and lenders should rely upon the home condition report? If it is, there is a strong argument for putting that in the Bill—given that one of the primary objectives of the Bill must be to reduce the cost of house buying. Surely one of the objectives is to avoid the necessity for the buyer to obtain his own valuation report by enabling him to rely upon the home condition report procured by the seller. I should be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say on those issues. 
 When this matter was raised on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister said that it was the Government's intention that both the buyer and the seller would be able to reply upon the HCR. No specific reference was made to the lender being able to rely upon the report. The lenders have a case, because if they are to do desktop valuations, they have to have before them a fairly robust report upon which they can rely, in law as well as in practice, in order to obviate the necessity for them to go out and get their own valuation report and charge the buyer for it. 
 However, there is of course no privity of contract between the lender and the seller. Do the Government believe that the law of negligence would apply and that, provided that detrimental reliance could be established, there would be a cause of action for the lender as well as the buyer? I should be grateful if the Minister would address these issues because they concern a number of people, including the Law Society and those in the commercial lending community. Although hon. Members might think that I am making a trade unionist point, I have never conveyed a house during the whole of my professional life. If the Bill is to be enacted, we will need greater clarity. I would like to see something like amendment No. 13 included in the Bill or, if not, further assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Nick Raynsford: In accordance with clause 8(4), the Secretary of State is able to make provision for the approval of one or more suitable certification schemes. Clause 8(5) lists a number of points about which the Secretary of State should satisfy himself before approving a scheme, including whether inspectors have adequate indemnity insurance and whether a complaint resolution procedure is in place.
 Amendment No. 11 would specify that members of the scheme should have a minimum of £500,000 indemnity insurance cover. However, it does not state whether that should apply on an aggregate or per claim basis, so it could be rather confusing to put it in the Bill. We do not support including a minimum level in the Bill as it would make it difficult to amend it in line with changes in house prices and inflation. It is far better that the certification scheme should determine a suitable level of cover, as it will vary over time. 
 It would be inappropriate to include in the Bill a minimum level of indemnity insurance required without also addressing other insurance-related matters—for example, the maximum level of insured excess required and the maintenance of proper run-off cover by members after they cease trading. All those relevant issues will be dealt with in the arrangements that will be put in place as part of the certification scheme. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and unhelpful. 
 On amendments Nos. 12 and 37, we recognise that lenders as well as buyers and sellers should have access to a complaint resolution procedure. Again, we intend that this matter should be addressed through the certification scheme. In approving a scheme, the Secretary of State will be well placed to ensure that proposals for handling complaints will be effective. That deals with the concern expressed in amendment No. 37. 
 We are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments. We are considering how the clause might be amended to make it absolutely clear that lenders' interests are covered, and we shall give further thought to the matter. Clause 8(5)(c) may not necessarily be the best place to do it, but I assure the Committee that we shall return to the subject at a later stage. 
 In developing arrangements for the resolution of complaints, certification schemes will need to consider whether lenders' interests can be served by the same complaints handling arrangements as those for buyers and sellers, or whether separate schemes would be more appropriate; as my hon. Friend and others will appreciate, lenders will have different concerns from buyers and sellers. The Council of Mortgage Lenders is playing a key role with other stakeholders, including the Consumers Association, in developing the home condition report and certification scheme; it is therefore well placed to ensure that its member's needs are met. 
 We intend that home condition report inspectors' liability to sellers, buyers and lenders will be secured by contract. I have said that on a number of occasions; it is our clear policy intention. As I said earlier, we are sympathetic to the amendment's purpose, which would make it clear in the Bill that lenders could rely on the document. We shall return to that question later. 
 As for third parties and privity of contract, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 will ensure that the buyer and the lender, as well as the seller who commissioned the home condition report, will be able to rely on it, and will be able to bring proceedings against the inspector should it prove necessary. I have repeatedly made clear our intention that buyers, sellers and lenders should be able to rely on the report and that they should have redress. I repeat that assurance. I fear that some parties simply do not wish to hear our assurances because, for whatever reason, they have taken against the idea of a home condition report. However, that does not change the facts, which are that we intend to ensure that all interested parties—buyers, sellers and lenders—will all be able to rely on the report and bring proceedings against the inspector should it prove necessary. 
 I hope that I have demonstrated that the certification arrangements, which are subject to the Secretary of State's approval, will deliver what hon. Members are seeking, without the need for the amendments. A valid point has been made with regard to Members' interests, which we will review in the context of the clause as a whole, rather than just in the context of the complaints procedure. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will agree to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who moved it.

Roger Gale: Order. On a technicality, that is not possible. The relevant Standing Order states that only the Member who moved the amendment can withdraw it. On that basis, when we come to the appropriate time, the amendment will have to be formally negatived. A Division will not be required, but the amendment must be negatived.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Gale. Perhaps you will explain, on another occasion, how we actually do that. I am sure that it will become clear.
 Will we have a clause stand part debate, Mr. Gale? There are a few extra points that I wanted to make which may be more appropriate to such a debate.

Roger Gale: Certainly.

Tim Loughton: Thank you, Mr. Gale. In the light of what the Minister has said, I am inclined to go along with that suggestion. The Minister said that some hon. Members did not wish to hear assurances because they were against home condition reports. We certainly want to hear assurances. We have been trying to add certain things to the Bill because it is so lacking in detail, and because it will not be enacted for such a long time, if it ever gets to that stage. The home condition reports are flawed, and do not deal with the central problem of gazumping, with which they were supposedly designed to deal. However, we are pragmatic, and realise that if the Government are, as they have demonstrated, determined to go ahead with the home condition reports, we must ensure that the legislation that is to be forced upon us is as watertight as possible for all the parties concerned. That also accounts for our desire for insurance guarantees.
 All this debate is unnecessary. I am aware that the Minister's Department has had discussions with various firms of surveyors that are well-versed in dealing with the problem of indemnities against flawed survey reports, and have been doing so on a purely voluntary and very successful basis. Allied Surveyors has made submissions to his Department. It is one of the largest firms of surveyors in the country, and is based in Chipping Sodbury, near Bristol, a place that has been mentioned many times in our discussions. 
 Two years ago, Allied Surveyors launched its own scheme—the Allied Surveyors guarantee survey. Under the scheme it has issued approximately 21,660 policies, which have resulted in 256 claims, the vast majority of which will have resulted in some form of payment. A relatively small number, on an ordinary, insurance-based guarantee, have received compensation because the firm has admitted some liability. In many cases, to avoid arguing over £300 or £400, they are prepared to be big and pay up. That is an exaggerated figure. 
 By way of comparison, when relying merely on professional indemnity insurance for surveyor negligence, over the same period of time, that firm has had just 16 notifications for claims for professional negligence, and it expects that only three or four of those claims will be successful. Those claims apply to all the work that the firm has undertaken, whereas the guarantees are issued on only approximately 20 per cent. of the work. That is an example of a perfectly practical and pragmatic scheme that has worked rather well, separately and far ahead of the legislation that the Government want to bring in. It has worked especially well for customers, who have not had to go to lengthy and costly legislation to take or threaten to take to court surveyors for faulty surveys. Customers on that voluntary and sensible scheme have had a far more satisfactory deal, and have had payouts with having to resort to legal action. Firms have been perfectly happy with the scheme. 
 The scheme could be extended throughout the country. It could easily operate through the growth of chains of people involved in property transaction—a subject that we discussed this morning. I am sure that any insurance company could take the scheme up and provide the framework for it. If the Government had taken a little more trouble to consider what works in practice and needs to be expanded by better practice, they could have saved us all the trouble of this yet further piece of legislation. 
 There are warnings ahead. The experience in the United States is not a happy one. Apparently, the US has tried a version of home condition reports known as pre-listing reports. Their success has been scant indeed. In many cases, they have led to greater conflicts of interest and less protection for consumers. That can be seen in recent legislation enacted in several states, especially Massachusetts, whereby it will soon be illegal for a real estate agent to make recommendations to a home buyer on a choice of home inspector. It seems odd that the evidence that the scheme works seems to have been drawn almost exclusively from Denmark. The rather closer example of the US has been fraught with problems, yet I do not believe that it has been mentioned by the Government. 
 Notwithstanding all that, as it is patently obvious that the Government will not accept a scheme, given their manic compulsion for legislation, it is right that we should stipulate protection for sellers, buyers and lenders. The Minister identified the obvious gap in the wording to protect lenders, so I am greatly encouraged that the Government might move towards the thrust of our amendments. On that basis, I will stop speaking, but I am not able to commit myself to anything ahead of your instructions, Mr. Gale.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Hitherto, a surveyor acting for a purchaser or a seller has had a specific obligation to that party. He may have a conflict of interest in how he describes something, as he could do so to suit the interests of either the buyer or the seller. On occasion, it will not be possible to look after both interests at the same time. Indeed, the surveyor would be expected to look after the lender as well, so he would be looking after three different parties with three possibly competing interests. In view of the amendment, the Minister needs to give some guidance as to how a surveyor would act under those circumstances.

Nick Raynsford: Three points have been made. The first is the Allied Surveyors issue raised by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Voluntary schemes such as that are fine. We have no problem with them, and have said that we welcome schemes such as that operated in the case of seller's packs. Some estate agents are successfully using them, which is fine. However, only one person has to decline to take part for the chain problem to arise and the benefits to be lost—which is why it is essential for home condition reports to be made mandatory. The framework for guaranteeing the validity of survey reports must be a consistent scheme throughout the country and not simply depend upon whether there is a good voluntary scheme operating in respect of one group or another of surveyors.
 The stakeholders involved in setting up the certification scheme are examining, with insurers, how hidden defects insurance can be provided on home condition reports. The concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman are very much part of the considerations and discussions taking place at the moment because, while such insurance could not be compulsory, it could be a very effective additional—and quite cheap—bolt-on, if people sought additional protection. It is a very important point and one that we are addressing. 
 The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about the US experience. We have not simply acted on the basis of the experience in Denmark. We have taken evidence from a large number of countries and we did not look at evidence from the United States. The absence of a certification scheme in the US is one of the weaknesses of the arrangements that exist in that country. There are variations from state to state—that is part of their constitutional framework—but there is no national arrangement for providing the underpinning that is provided by a certification scheme. That is why we do not believe that the American experience, in this respect, is helpful. 
 The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has raised the issue of conflicts of interest. That is a fair and reasonable concern. He raised it in a different context this morning and I addressed it then. It is absolutely with a view to ensuring that we can depend on the quality of the inspector's reports that we are seeking a robust certification framework under which inspectors who prepare reports will produce evidence in a format that allows the least possible scope for interpretation that might favour one party. Objectivity is the key aim, and that is the format that has already been discussed. I think that the hon. Gentleman has seen a copy of the proposed format. If he has not, I will make sure that he does. The objective is to ensure that, so far as possible, information is delivered in a way that is the least prone to interpretation as favouring one party. It is not always possible to remove all elements of subjectivity because judgment is involved in certain respects. So far as possible, however, we intend to ensure that an objective report is delivered.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I warn the Minister of one problem that may occur, which he can think about when he has discussions with the new body? The temptation will be for the surveyor's description to be minimalist. He will say simply that the house has a crack. There will be no temptation to make a judgment as to how serious that crack is because, if he is trying to look after the interests of the vendor, the purchaser and the financial institution at the same time then, as the Minister has just acknowledged, wherever possible he will avoid making subjective judgments, although his report will be factually correct. That is yet another reason why the purchaser may need to have a more extensive structural survey to serve his own interests.

Nick Raynsford: That is an interesting point and when the hon. Gentleman studies the proposed format for the home condition report he will see that it is proposed that, in addition to the descriptions, inspectors should give a rating on a scale of one to four in respect of all the indicators. If I may summarise, rating 1 will indicate that the item is in acceptable state of repair; rating 2 will mean that minor maintenance may be required; where rating 3 is given, significant repair or maintenance is required; and rating 4 will indicate that urgent repair is required. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, given that obligation, it will not be possible for an inspector simply to gloss over a crack. The inspector would have to indicate whether it was something purely cosmetic, which might rate 2, or something more serious, rating 3 or 4. There really will be an attempt to grade the severity of the problem.
 I do not minimise the difficulties. The new format will be complex; it will require a lot of preparation and training and it will need to be properly enforced. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it is our intention to ensure, as far as possible, that the measures are objective and will give a fair indication of the condition of the property without the scope for evasion that sometimes mars the benefit to customers of survey reports at present.

Don Foster: Earlier in our deliberations, the Minister said that the work of the certification body would be largely a paper exercise. How often does he envisage that representatives of the certification body will check the accuracy or otherwise of the documentation?

Nick Raynsford: That is a fine point of detail on how the certification scheme will operate. It would be wrong for me to anticipate what will be decided. An expert body involving all the stakeholders is discussing the matter, and it will make recommendations. We shall consider them carefully before making a decision. It would be wrong of me to anticipate its conclusions.

Don Foster: Given that in our earlier deliberations the Minister was clear about the cost of the certification body and the average cost that would be added to surveys, the Government must have some idea of the percentage of reports that would be backed up by a visit from the certification body. One would expect the cost of such checks to be a major element in the body's expenses, and it must have been taken into account in the figure that the Minister cited earlier.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman probably misunderstands the basis on which the certification proceeding will be set up. It is not designed to be a double checking mechanism that will check inspectors' work on properties. However, as I said this morning, there will be an obligation for every report to be registered. That will be open to checks, so there will be an option to verify whether one inspector seems to be adopting an approach that appears to be out of line with that of other inspectors. That circumstance might well justify further intervention by the certification body. What the precise criteria should be and how those checks should be carried out are details for the certification body to consider. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that we are keen that it should be a rigorous and thorough arrangement, but it must be informed by the views of the specialists and experts who are working with us to develop the system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Normally, someone commissions a surveyor to undertake a survey. Under the Bill, the seller will commission a survey, but the buyer will pay for it and the surveyor will be liable to the seller, the buyer and the lender. Under those circumstances, if the buyer or the lending institution wishes to raise further inquiries with the surveyor, will the surveyor be liable to answer them? If so, who will pay for the extra work involved?

Nick Raynsford: Perhaps I can clarify the procedure. If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he implied that, although the seller would commission the survey, the buyer would pay for it; but that is not our intention. The seller will commission the survey when preparing the seller's pack and he will have financial liability for it. Depending on the arrangement reached with the estate agent who puts together the seller's pack, it may be paid for at the time or on completion of the sale, but it will be commissioned and paid for by the seller. The seller will have the option to seek further information, but that option could be available to other parties. In certain circumstances, and provided that they are satisfied that the particulars are available and that the surveyor is on an approved panel, lenders may choose to go to the same surveyor for further information in the course of a valuation. I see no reason why such an arrangement could not be made to work. There would obviously need to be safeguards, but it would be sensible.
 Equally, on seeing a home condition report, a buyer may seek a further more detailed survey from the same surveyor on the basis that that will probably be more economical than starting out with an entirely different structural survey from a separate surveyor. Again, that is one of the options. Our aim is to ensure that the home condition report provides information of real use to all three parties—seller, buyer and lender—on which they can rely. Also, it should provide a cost-effective way to secure additional information, if that is necessary.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want the matter to be absolutely clear. If buyers or lending institutions request information over and above that required by the home condition report, will they be liable to pay for it?

Nick Raynsford: If they seek extra information from the inspector, that is a matter entirely for them. It is separate and ancillary to the home condition report, and the seller has no liability. Whether the surveyor chooses to charge for it will depend on his relationship with the lender. If the inquiry is a minor matter from a lender who puts a lot of business a surveyor's way, the surveyor may choose not to charge for it. The judgment will be the surveyor's, but the liability will be entirely on the person commissioning the extra information.
 I hope that we have now covered all the issues that we need to. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment. 
 Amendment negatived.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I did not want to interrupt the flow of debate but, like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I may need to attend the debate on the Floor of the House shortly. I apologise if I have to leave early.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. All members of the Committee understand the difficulties of attending to duties in Committee and on the Floor of the House at the same time.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 7, line 12, leave out `affects' and insert `limits'.
 I shall be brief, lest the threat of the hon. Member for Bath is realised and the Opposition Benches are denuded of Liberal Democrats to participate. 
 Amendment No. 56 is designed simply to clarify the Bill. Clause 8 states: 
 Nothing in this section affects the power under section 7 to make provision about home condition reports in the regulations. 
That is not an elegant way to express the purpose, and the substitution of ``limits'' for ``effects'' makes the intention clear and allows no ambiguity. I hope that everyone will agree that that is a sensible and appropriate amendment. In line with my earlier comments, I commend it as an improvement to the Bill with no change in substance or policy. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: It has become clear as we have talked to the amendments to clause 8 that there are still many questions to be answered, many schemes to be finalised and many details to be given. It is obvious that we are unhappy about the use of the home condition reports. We believe that the HCRs will be too brief, too general and will prove inadequate for many purposes. The measure is far-reaching, given that it could affect more than 1 million private residential sales and that the survey take-up is less than 20 per cent. of the 1.5 million sales at the moment. As things stand, buyers of property will be given a misleading picture as to the thoroughness of the home condition report, as opposed to a fuller survey of the sort that the seller is now perfectly at liberty to commission.
 We feel that there is some lulling of the purchaser into a false sense of security. We also want to stress— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Tim Loughton: I was about to point out a further problem with home condition reports, which is the lack of what I might call shelf life, and the Government have said nothing to suggest that the reports should be time-limited. They are effectively condoning a system under which a house sale could be based on a home condition report carried out six months, a year or even 18 months ago, since when fundamental changes might have been made to the building's soundness—not least, in today's climate, through flooding.
 That weakness raises the question of cost. During the frenetic activity that went into the producing the Bill, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told the various interested parties that it anticipates that the costs involved will rise considerably, even to European levels, where commission rates are typically between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. That would have a serious impact on the house sales economy. 
 It is important that people should know that a home condition report will not provide a property valuation. It will not be a structural or building survey, and the buyer may still want a rather more detailed structural survey to be made; if it is deemed to be necessary, which would certainly be the case with older property. That would be in addition to the cost of the home condition report. 
 The home inspector's inspection will be visual only. We are led to believe that no part of the property will be opened up or damaged to allow a more detailed inspection. In particular, the home inspector will not raise floorboards or floor coverings, will not lift wall finishes or other contents or remove vegetation—I presume that that means mould growing on the walls. However, we are assured that the home inspector will come manned with a 3m ladder, so that will be all right. The reports will contain many flaws, particularly about the outside of the building. Only significant defects to boundary fences and walls, retaining walls, paths and driveways that are part of the property will be reported on, and the home condition report will not deal with the condition of external features or amenities such as tennis courts and ponds. 
 We are dealing with something that is betwixt and between; the home condition report will not be a cursory tick box valuation, but nor will it be a full survey. It will be a halfway house, but it will increase the cost of the transaction considerably. It will not lead to a full investigation of the property, as some have been led to believe. It will be woefully inadequate. I fear that the home condition report, which is at the heart of the Bill, shows the weakness in the changes that the Government are keen to thrust upon us. We want to reiterate our concern that the Bill is fraught with problems.

Nick Raynsford: The Opposition's weakness is their tendency to criticise from a particular angle, regardless of whether their criticisms are consistent. [Interruption.] To answer the hon. Member for Cotswold, it is right for the Opposition to oppose, but that need not mean criticism irrespective of consistency. One expects a degree of integrity from Oppositions, and that they will pursue a consistent line. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for East, or rather for Shoreham—

Tim Loughton: At least we are consistent about our constituencies.

Nick Raynsford: I confessed in a previous sitting to my terrible problem with double-barrelled constituencies. The words East Worthing and Shoreham have at last reached my lips, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for getting his constituency wrong.
 The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham began by saying that the home condition reports would be too limited and inadequate, and that leitmotif returned at the end of his remarks. He also said that they would lull buyers into a false sense of security. Early in his speech he came up with the simple fact, which we endorse, that a great majority of buyers now obtain no survey or home condition report at all. They enter into what is almost certainly the biggest financial transaction of their life with no information. Far from agreeing on the advisability of encouraging people to obtain some information, the hon. Gentleman took the opposite view and said that the idea was wrong. He then resorted to attacking the proposal on the ground that it would increase cost. However, following his logic and obtaining a more thorough and rigorous survey would cost even more. 
 What do the Opposition want? Do they want people to be well informed when they take a decision, or ignorant? Do they want them to have a reliable and informative report on which to base a judgment about the need for a further survey? If several important matters in a report received a rating of 4, clearly, any potential buyer would be well advised to obtain further information, but at least the preliminary information would be available.

Tim Loughton: At the moment every person—few as they are—who obtains a survey of a building is guaranteed to receive one that is up to date, because it is commissioned when a sale is likely. The assurance of the impartiality of the report is that it has been commissioned by the would-be purchaser. Is not that the big difference?

Nick Raynsford: No, it is not. I notice that the hon. Gentleman immediately tried to sidle away under a different argument, namely the shelf-life of the survey. The key point is that the buyer must be able to rely on the home condition report. We discussed that issue in detail earlier this afternoon, and because it is so important we are setting up a framework that will provide buyers with reports on which they can rely, in contrast to the present state of affairs, in which the vast majority have nothing. It is rich to be accused by the Opposition of foisting unsatisfactory and insufficiently informative reports on the public, when they admit that most people now obtain little or no information.
 As to the shelf-life, we have always made it clear that there will be an obligation to produce a first seller's pack and that in general it would be possible to rely on it for a period but that after a time some items might need renewing. In particular, local authority searches would probably require a check after perhaps three months, but, as I have mentioned several times, with the introduction of new electronic communications systems and with NLIS coming on line, it should be possible to carry out a check for a tiny sum of money, to ascertain the validity of the original search. That would be a way of keeping up to date at minimal cost and would be compatible with what we are proposing. 
 If a property is on the market for a long time, there maybe a need for a further check—particularly in circumstances such as flooding, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. However, the basic information will generally be valid for a significant time and will provide buyers with information that they currently do not have.

Tim Loughton: Surely the point is that it is only a basic search. Given new problems, such as flooding, sensible buyers will have further questions that go above and beyond the scope of the basic search. Further to my earlier point, from which I did not wish to drift, is it not true that if a buyer chooses a property that has been on the market for 12 or 18 months, he will have to pay a premium in commissioning an additional survey because the old one's shelf life has expired? Why should he be prejudiced simply because the seller's property has been on the market for a long time, while someone who bought it after a short time would not have to commission a further report? Why is the Minister so biased against the buyer of such a property?

Nick Raynsford: That is a preposterous argument. It is not a question of bias against individuals. We have clearly said that the home condition report will be available to them. We have indicated where it maybe necessary to update it and, in the case of searches, that is likely to be a cost-effective operation. Flooding that affects a property is a serious matter, and someone considering buying a property that has been subject to flooding would be well advised to have further checks made, whatever period had elapsed since the original survey.
 If nature sends a flood, it is not the Government being biased against someone who chooses to buy some time after the survey, it is life; it is an act of God. I can tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that that is indicative of the Opposition's approach, which is to seek carping criticisms rather than to recognise that the Bill attempts to remedy a fundamental weakness in our current framework. At present, many people spend money on probably the biggest financial transaction of their lives without any reliable information on the value or condition of the property or the potential cost of any repairs.

Tim Loughton: It is not the Government but the system that is biased against those people that buy properties that have been on the market for a long time. Whatever the Minister may say, they would be well advised to commission their own surveys if there is a threat of flooding or circumstances change. The difference is that the cost of their survey would be on top of the cost of the vendor's home condition report, which would be reflected in the price. The difference is that we have had one impartial survey at the point of sale, which would satisfy all those concerns, and we are now to have two surveys—one HCR and a survey.

Nick Raynsford: That is indicative of an Opposition who are focusing on the detail rather than seeing the big picture. I have had cause to chide the Liberal Democrats for not being conscious of the realities of business, and I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap. If a property has been on the market for a year or more, it is likely that the vendor will reduce the price in order to secure a sale. To suggest that the person who buys six months, a year or 18 months after the property was put on the market is landed with an additional cost without any potential off-setting saving shows that he is out of touch with reality. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that when properties are on the market for a long time the vendors tend to reduce the price in order to make a sale. The Opposition should ``Get real''. They should think about how the market operates and recognise that this is an important additional provision that will ensure that people are better informed and better able to make rational judgments on something that is hugely important to them. That is the result of the Government's determination to attack the problem instead of trying to justify the maintenance of the status quo, which, sadly, is the Opposition's position. They spent 18 years presiding over a housing market that went through extreme fluctuations of boom and bust, and did nothing about it. Now, they can only carp at and criticise our attempts to put matters right. It is a sad reflection on the Opposition that they are not able to take a more constructive position, and the judgment of history will find them wanting.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Enforcement

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 15, leave out subsection (1).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 7, line 19, leave out
`by officers of local weights and measures authorities.'. 
No. 30, in page 7, line 21, at end add— 
 `( ) The Secretary of State shall provide resources to cover additional training and operational requirements that local weights and measures authorities may require for the enforcement of this Part.'.

Tim Loughton: The Minister's final comment on the previous amendment reminded me of the old saying by a Member of this House that now is not the time for cliches, but I feel the hand of history on my shoulder.
 Clause 9 deals with the enforcement of the penalties that the Government seek to impose on innocent house sellers, who are to join the ranks of people who pursue country sports as criminals. The amendments would decriminalise the faults specified by the clause and take the weights and measures trading standards officers out of the equation. Amendment No. 30 represents a fall-back position. If the Government insist on making such behaviour a criminal offence, with the full force of the trading standards officers to enforce their diktats, we want at least to ensure that those officers are suitably resourced to carry out their duties. 
 Conservative Members are surprised that the Government are relying on weights and measures officers to carry out their bidding—one would have thought that they already have their work cut out in pursuing sellers of bananas in imperial measures. The metric martyr, Steven Thorburn, will no doubt be the first of many honest tradespeople in this country whom the Government intend to fine and give a criminal record.

Roger Gale: Order. I have a vivid imagination, but, try as I might, I cannot link metric bananas with the sale of housing.

Tim Loughton: The point is not as distant as you might have been led to believe, Mr. Gale. It is essential to the clause that the enforcement procedure is carried out by weights and measures staff. Those same staff are, as we speak, having their resources pressed to the limit by the pursuit of wrongdoers in the shape of purveyors of bananas and assorted loose fruit in imperial, rather than metric, measurements.

Chris Mullin: The regulation that the officers are enforcing, on whatever grounds, was introduced by the Government whom he supported.

Tim Loughton: Yes, indeed. However, by pursuing such people the Government are failing to use common sense.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Two wrongs do not make a right.

Tim Loughton: As my hon. Friend says, two wrongs do not make a right.

Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman should not pay any attention to his hon. Friend.

Roger Gale: Order.

Tim Loughton: Let me try another angle. The weights and measures staff who are hiding themselves in piles of bananas in greengrocers up and down the land are also having to deal with the problem of cowboy builders, which the Minister's scheme singularly, and abysmally, fails to address. Despite warnings from Conservative Members, building practitioners and those who look after the victims of cowboy builders—including an effective operation in my constituency called First Checkpoint, of which I am a trustee—the Minister went ahead with a scheme for a quality register mark for builders, but in the entire country two firms only have registered. Meanwhile, cowboy builders are let loose to carry out their cowboy activities. Again, they will have to be checked by overworked, under-resourced members of weights and measures departments.
 A solicitor in my constituency commented on weights and measures staff enforcing the extra legislation: 
 They are grossly overworked and unable to fulfil their existing commitments satisfactorily. 
Indeed, it is worth reminding ourselves for what weights and measures officers are already responsible: weights and measures, fair trading, product safety, food standards, consumer credit, business advice, animal health and welfare, licensing, underage sales of alcohol, consumer advice, consumer education and road traffic functions. Policing the sale of 1.5 million British properties each year, which is a large commitment, is to be added to those weighty responsibilities. 
 There are inadequacies and variations in the weights and measures system, as last year's Audit Commission briefing on the best value agenda for trading standards services pointed out: 
 In some places, high-risk premises have a less than 1 in 10 chance of being visited each year. 
Given that background, the Opposition must ask, regardless of how proper, watertight and effective the Government think their legislative recommendations, whether the weights and measures system can cope with such an additional burden on its time and resources. 
 As laid out in the legislation, trading standards officers will have the discretion to decide action to be taken when a suspected offence is reported and investigated. They can give advice, issue a warning, offer a formal caution, serve a fixed-penalty notice or, ultimately, commence a prosecution in the magistrates court. Much additional training will be required to help trading standards officers decide which course of action to take, because they will have great discretion in interpreting how the breach of the regulations should be tackled. For example, they will have to work out who constitutes someone acting as an estate agent beyond the conventional estate agent working in an office. That relates to our earlier discussion about the man operating through the man in the pub. 
 There is also a problem with keeping up with the estate agency business; because estate agents do not have to be licensed, anybody can set up as one. There is a proper trade body called the National Association of Estate Agents which has a code of practice. It has 10,000 members, which is the majority, but not all, of the industry. Of course, they are wholly voluntary members, so adhere to the code on a voluntary basis. Only one third of estate agent firms in this country support the voluntary ombudsman for estate agents scheme, which has been in operation since 1990. 
 My point is that many estate agents fall outside the trade-body net, and even more fall outside the ombudsman net. The estate agents most likely—it is not inevitable—to transgress the terms of the regulations will surely be those who are not members of official trade bodies or who are not prepared to sign up to ombudsman schemes. It will be much more difficult for hard-pressed trading standards officers to keep tabs on such people, particularly if they do not have obvious offices in the high street. Interestingly, the ombudsman for estate agents specifically is not able to deal with disputes over surveys and formal valuation, so that is a weakness in the system as it stands. 
 Let us take the example of the trading standards office in my constituency—one of three offices covering the county of West Sussex. West Sussex has eight constituencies and a population of just under 750,000. For the entire county—and I am told that we are relatively well provided for—there are 65 staff. Around half of them are involved in enforcement. Seven give advice, and they are the ones who tend to receive complaints at the sharp end and judge whether there is a case to hand over to enforcement officers or the legal department. West Sussex trading standards receive 16,000 complaints and inquiries a year which, as I said, tend to be filtered through the advice team. 
 The first problem concerns a general awareness that trading standards will have a role in the proposed provisions. Will members of the public automatically ring up trading standards if they are not satisfied with the seller's packs or the way in which a sale has taken place? They are not the obvious first port of call if something has gone wrong with a house sale. As I said earlier, West Sussex has good provision relative to other authorities. Many authorities have no advice department. That is particularly so in London weights and measures offices, and may be in the Minister's constituency in east London. Therefore, any complaints are referred purely on an inspection basis, often with spot checks from enforcement officers. Many of those departments are completely overwhelmed already. 
 It is interesting to look at the example of the working of the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, which was mentioned this morning. As we heard earlier, the Act was introduced after lengthy consideration on rectifying glaring gaps in the previous Labour Government's legislation in 1979 and, before that, in 1968. From talking to trading standards officers, it seems that it has proved fiendishly difficult to secure prosecutions under the Act. Up to 1996, when a five-year review was held—and bearing in mind that there are currently 1.5 million property transactions a year—there had been only 60 convictions. As it is difficult to get convictions under the Act, there is little case law. Typically, cases hinge on disputes over garden size and the nature of leasehold and freehold, for example. 
 It is almost impossible to secure a conviction for failure to reveal by an estate agent. Failure, either by the seller or the estate agent, to reveal certain defects which then become apparent after the sale has gone through is not unusual, but prosecuting it is highly difficult. Therefore, the experience of trading standards officers in pursuing house sale legislation in the form that has been on the statute book for almost 10 years is not good. Any trading standards officer will say that, despite their current resources, they are not able in practice properly to bring to bear the full requirements of the legislation. 
 There is a very interesting case from 1997 that went to the Court of Appeal: McCullagh v. Lane Fox and Partners. Lane Fox was instructed to sell a five-bedroom house in 0.48 of an acre of land for £850,000, but owing to a mistake by the agent in reading the measurements, the plot was recorded as 0.92 of an acre—almost double its actual size. The particulars included a standard disclaimer. Will the Minister to take up the point of whether standard disclaimers on estate agents seller's packs will have any bearing in the matter? Although the judge ruled that Lane Fox and Partners owed a duty of care to Mr. or Mrs. McCullagh in respect of the negligent mis-statement, he said that there had been no financial loss and therefore dismissed the action. That is just one example of how difficult it has proved for trading standards officers to bring convictions under the 1991 Act. 
 Opposition Members do not believe that, despite the exemptions on which the Government have sought to reassure us at various stages, not providing all the necessary component parts of a seller's pack, for whatever reason, should be a criminal offence. Earlier legislation deals with fraud , but the worst cases could be pursued under the Bill. There may be a case for fines, the threat of fines or penalties, but to make the offence criminal is to go over the top. 
 We believe that the provision is unworkable. The practice of using trading standards officers to enforce previous legislation connected with house sales has clearly proved unworkable. At present, trading standards offices are overworked. They are being asked to take on increasing amounts of work to impose the Government's will and are given precious few additional resources for that increased work. They are also having to undergo a harsh best value audit. Therefore, in the best interests of the Bill, the omission should not be deemed a criminal offence and weights and measures officers should not be required to enforce it. Related legislation has not worked over the past 10 years, so why should the Bill?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham gave an excellent exposition on amendments Nos. 14 and 15, but rather glossed over amendment No. 30, although the compliance costs of the Bill are highly germane to the clause. Will the Minister tell the Committee exactly how many extra weights and measures officers he expects will be needed to police the Bill and who will be responsible for training them in their new duties? They will have no experience in property matters. Presumably, therefore, their existing work will have to be covered while they are being trained.
 How much will the extra officers cost and will local authorities be fully reimbursed for that extra cost? Might we find, as on so many occasions, that local authorities are given an extra statutory burden but are not fully recompensed by central Government for it? If so, the extra burden will fall on council tax payers, many of whom are likely to face a settlement this year that is way above inflation and who will be howling from the rooftops at the Government's treatment of them even before additional costs are imposed by the Bill. So that local council tax payers may have an idea of what the Bill will impose on them, the Minister should give the answers to my questions.

Chris Mullin: As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham says, amendments Nos. 14 and 15 would remove the references in the clause to local weights and measures authorities, but would leave intact the associated provisions relating to fixed penalties. The amendments would remove any practical means of enforcing the seller's pack obligations. We have not chosen to impose a criminal sanction lightly. We believe that that is the only truly effective way in which to ensure that everyone complies with the new requirement. The vast majority of people abide by the law, but there will always be some who seek to take advantage if given half a chance. That is why effective sanctions are necessary.
 Under our proposals, local weights and measures officers will be responsible for enforcing the seller's pack requirements. The hon. Member for Cotswold said that they have no experience of property matters, but that is nonsense. They are ideally placed to carry out that function. As has been noted, they are already responsible for enforcing the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and parts of the Estate Agents Act 1979. Enforcing the seller's pack obligations is in many respects complementary to the activities of trading standards officers under those Acts. Our proposals will therefore provide an experienced and cost-effective means of enforcement. I shall discuss in a moment some of the details to which reference was made. 
 Some Opposition members of the Committee have tried to paint a lurid picture of sellers being dragged through the courts by jackbooted trading standards officers on the basis of a casual conversation in a public house, in which they happened to mention that their house was up for sale. To be fair, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has not drawn that comparison on this occasion, but on two others he has used the word ``Gestapo''. Trading standards officers are public servants who do a very good job, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to take this opportunity to put on record an apology, or at least to make it clear that he was talking about someone else. I can think of no other candidates, so it seemed to me that he was indeed referring to trading standards officers.

Tim Loughton: I am delighted to put it on the record that we do not intend to insult or besmirch the names of any of the hard-working, hard-pressed and under-appreciated members of trading standards offices throughout the country. In the heat of Second Reading, perhaps the word ``Gestapo'' was taken out of context. I might say instead that the tactics that we will debate in respect of schedule 1—the powers that will be given to trading standards officers—at the very least have something of the night about them.

Chris Mullin: I am not sure to what extent that constitutes an apology. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were made in the heat of the moment. I accept that explanation in relation to Second Reading, but his repeating them in Committee rather suggests that they were premeditated. If a Labour Member were to make such a comment, mass hysteria would be organised by the Opposition. As on many past occasions, the Prime Minister would be asked to dissociate himself from the Member concerned. We have been through this many times before—it is a little game called ``denounce'', which the Opposition when in government used to play often and with considerable success.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is playing a very mischievous game on my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He used the term because Conservative Members wholly deprecate the giving of yet another group of criminal sanctions to civil servants. Criminal sanctions are unnecessary, because the civil procedure of fixed penalty could perfectly well be adapted for the Bill.

Chris Mullin: It is possible to make that point without calling trading standards officers gestapo, as the hon. Member for Cotswold—although not his colleague, unfortunately—has demonstrated. I am sure that you do not want me to labour the point, Mr. Gale. I thought that I should give the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham the opportunity to apologise, but it is clear that he does not want to.
 The truth is less sensational. In most cases, no offence will have been committed, as there will have been no marketing to the public or a section of the public. However, even if a technical offence is committed, enforcement officers will have a range of options to go through before anyone is taken to court. In the vast majority of cases, in which someone has made an honest mistake in marketing a home without a seller's pack for example, trading standards officers will be able to provide advice or a warning, which will be the end of the matter. 
 The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that there had been only 60 prosecutions under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. Incidentally, hon. Members may be interested to know that there are criminal sanctions attached to the legislation, and I think that it was introduced by one of the hon. Gentleman's former colleagues. The reason for the small number of prosecutions may be that trading standards officers have employed the large range of other sanctions, ranging from advice to slightly more direct measures, and it has not been necessary to go round prosecuting lots of people. Trading standards officers are sensible people, and they do not prosecute lightly. They may have managed to enforce the Act without difficulty.

Tim Loughton: To use the phrase used by the Minister for Housing and Planning, if the Under-Secretary gets out into the real world and talks to trading standards officers, he will find that they are frustrated, although not because they have mitigated criminal proceedings to the lesser course of action that they are allowed to take. They are frustrated about the impossibility of making convictions stick so that cases never get near a court in the first place. I was making the point that that is the real weakness with the Act.

Chris Mullin: Of course one needs evidence to make a prosecution stick, but in the overwhelming majority of cases of infringements that I anticipate under the Bill, prosecution will not be necessary. In cases in which the offence is considered to be a little more serious, trading standards officers may issue a formal caution. The next option is a fixed penalty. We have it in mind that that penalty will be about £150 to £200, in line with the general level of fines commonly imposed by magistrates courts for offences under the 1991 Act. That form of sanction may be considered if someone continues to market a property without a seller's pack, despite receiving a formal caution. Payment of a fixed penalty does not mean that someone will have a criminal record, which is a rather important point.
 The ultimate sanction is a summons to a magistrates court. A court will hear a case after service of a fixed penalty notice only if a person chooses not to pay the fixed penalty. That may happen if the person believes that they are not guilty of any offence. It is an important provision, which means that everyone has an effective opportunity to challenge the service of the notice. In other cases, proceedings may be started without the service of a fixed penalty notice. That option may be considered if an estate agent has consistently flouted the law by continuing to market properties without seller's packs, despite repeated warnings and fixed penalties. 
 We want to avoid unnecessary court proceedings and avoid unsuspecting home owners being caught up in sanctions. The Bill gives local weights and measures authorities considerable leeway to exercise discretion in the use of the sanctions available, and I have every confidence that they will do so, especially where private citizens are concerned. 
 We have consulted the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards, and the only concern relates to our decision to impose the seller's pack duty, backed up by criminal sanctions, on home owners who market their own homes. As the vast majority of homes are marketed through estate agents, we considered restricting the seller's pack requirement to people marketing homes in the course of a business. However, there are fundamental drawbacks with that option. Sellers seeking to avoid the cost of an up-front seller's pack would be tempted to market their homes themselves, rather than through an agent, to avoid the seller's pack requirement. That would lead to the two-track system and the chain problems mentioned earlier, and would undermine the Bill's objectives. People are naturally worried that imposing on private individuals criminal sanctions that are enforced by local trading standards officers will have a detrimental impact on public perception of those authorities and hamper their efforts to ensure the adequate protection of consumer interests. That is not our intention, as my Department has made clear to LACOTS. 
 In enforcing the seller's pack duty, trading standards officers will have extensive discretion within the principles of good enforcement detailed in the enforcement concordat. We shall consult LACOTS and others on the best means of ensuring that trading standards officers can provide effective help and advice to consumers and avoid unnecessary sanctions. We envisage the trading standards officer's role as protecting the interests of consumers, by which I mean responsible home buyers and sellers. 
 Amendment No. 30 would require the Secretary of State to provide the resources that local weights and measures authorities need to carry out their enforcement duties—additional resources to cover the additional training and other operational requirements imposed by the Bill. The cost implications of enforcing the duties will be considered, and the additional funds that are considered necessary will be taken into account in the appropriate local government financial settlement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has already been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions about the matter. 
 Bids for additional resources will be treated in the usual way, but to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold, preliminary signs from LACOTS suggest that such bids are unlikely to be significant, given the complementary nature of the work and trading standards officers' existing duties under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. When the matter arose a few days ago, the hon. Member for Eastbourne described our figure of £5,000 as the average cost per authority—what we believe is likely to be the increase in cost to each authority on average—as ``amazing''. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is not now present, also queried it. 
 I emphasise that the estimate was not ours but was provided by LACOTS, which has since confirmed it. It is totally bogus to suggest that the proposals will cost too much money, that no one will be able to afford to implement the proposals and that overworked trading standards officers will simply not have the time. The estimate was made by LACOTS, which says that the proposals are liable to cost an average of £5,000 per authority. That body represents the interests of trading standards officers, and is responsible for, among other matters, consideration of issues arising in connection with consumer protection matters. If, however, hon. Members have a more reliable source of information than LACOTS, perhaps they could share it with me and, indeed, LACOTS, as I expect that it would be interested.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Under-Secretary is once again being rather mischievous and cursory in his remarks. Does he agree with the LACOTS estimates? Does he believe that they are too large or too small? Will he give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that, whatever costs local authorities incur—they will incur different costs, as some will have more difficult cases with which to deal than others—those costs will be met by the Government in full? Otherwise, local authority treasurers will be scratching their heads and worrying about how much provision to make to offset the cost of the Bill.

Chris Mullin: I shall not give guarantees, but I hope that any sensible person will realise that £5,000, in the overall context of a trading standards officer's budget, is a rather small sum. That is not my estimate; I am not qualified to make one, but I believe that LACOTS is. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a more reliable source of information, we shall take it into account. As I said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, and if a bid needs to be made for increased resources, it will be dealt with in the usual way.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is simply not good enough. The Government should have produced realistic cost estimates. Do they agree with the LACOTS estimate? Is it too high or too low? As they are imposing obligations on local authorities, they have a duty to tell them what costs they expect the Bill to impose.

Chris Mullin: I have absolutely no reason to doubt the LACOTS estimate. However, if, by some chance, it was 100 per cent. wrong, and the figure was £10,000 not £5,000, that would not devastate local government finance.
 We are serious about enforcing the Bill. If compliance is optional or extremely difficult to enforce, not many seller's packs will be used. There is no middle way—one is either in favour of enforcement or against it, and we have sound reasons for favouring it. 
 The hon. Gentleman's argument is undermined by the fact that the previous Government introduced several pieces of property legislation—including the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and the Estate Agents Act 1979—which contain precisely the same sanctions enforced by precisely the same people.

Tim Loughton: It is a shame that the Minister dismisses so complacently the points that we have made, which are perfectly genuine and were made to us by the people who will have to enforce the regulations—some of which are highly unenforceable—regardless of whether they have the resources to do so. We did not invent these objections to undermine the Bill; they are based on the comments of council employees in our constituencies who will have to enforce it.
 I have provided perfectly feasible examples of problems arising from existing legislation in terms of property descriptions that fail to have the effect that the 1991 Act was fashioned to achieve. The Minister acknowledged that only 60 prosecutions were made in its first five years, but he does not care about that. On top of the failure properly to execute the terms of 1991 Act, the entire private residential house selling industry is to fall into the lap of trading standards officers. 
 The Bill does not merely give staff a little more work to do or a few more areas to regulate. In my county, under the scheme to be introduced in two years' time, 65 staff will be responsible for 1.5 million properties a year. The Minister has not said whether, if more staff are required, additional resources will be provided to enable them properly and adequately, within the letter and spirit of the Bill, to carry out the additional job that has been given to them. 
 The Minister was woefully complacent in responding to our concerns. Moreover, he completely failed to deal with the point about standard disclaimers on literature that may be included in seller's packs.

Chris Mullin: I am advised that the inspector is liable, regardless of any disclaimer that he places in his literature.
 As for the hon. Gentleman's accusation about my attitude to the figures produced by the West Sussex trading standards officers, it is not true that I did not care about them. Indeed, I acknowledged the figures in my remarks, but interpreted them less extravagantly than he does.

Tim Loughton: The Minister danced around the gestapo issue, which he regularly regurgitates to deflect attention from the serious shortfalls in the Bill. If he thinks that an apology is necessary, I unreservedly apologise for any misrepresentation that he sought to make of my earlier comments. However, my postbag and telephone have been bereft of communications from trading standards officers. Many trading standards officers are more sensible than the Minister thinks, because they know not to take those comments personally or professionally. If anyone is acting like the gestapo—whatever that may mean—it is the Government, who give trading standards officers their orders. They are only obeying orders that the Minister gives them through the legislation.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold put his finger on the key issue, namely, that the existing civil penalty procedure can deal with the problems that the Government are trying to address. The Minister is right to say that this argument goes to the heart of the legislation. In many cases, he could achieve more on a voluntary basis. We certainly do not need the full criminal law coming down on people who are going about the legitimate business of trying to sell their house. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendments, which go to the core of whether the problem should be treated as a criminal matter, to a vote.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has heard the Minister's replies to my questions about the costs that will be imposed on local authorities and how many extra trading standards officers will be needed to police the Bill. We have an estimate from a body that the Government do not control, so we do not know whether they have any idea what the costs are. Furthermore, we have had no information as to how many extra officers will be required to police the Bill. Given those circumstances, the Government are not living up to the standards expected by the House. They have introduced a Bill, but they are unable to answer basic questions about it—all that we get is snide comments from the Minister.

Tim Loughton: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. I fear that the standards that the House expects from the Government have been on a slippery slope since 1 May 1997. The complacency with which the Minister treated these important points, which will affect people in the Government's employ who will have to enforce these unenforceable provisions, is scandalous. On that basis, we shall press the amendments to a vote.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Fixed penalties and enforcement

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill

Tim Loughton: We have already discussed part of the schedule, which concerns fixed penalties and enforcements. I do not intend to rake over previously covered ground, but I have about half a dozen points that I would like the Minister to clarify. Paragraph 4(1) states that there is a facility for withdrawal of a fixed penalty notice. In what circumstances does he envisage that withdrawal notices will be used? Under paragraph 6(4), a weights and measures officer who has reason to believe that documents might be required is empowered to
seize and detain them and . . ., if he does so, inform the person from whom they are seized. 
If the fault is deemed to lie with the estate agent who has the documents necessary for a seller's pack, and if that agent has jumped the gun and commenced marketing without first assembling the component parts of the seller's pack that the Secretary of State has deemed appropriate, it is the vendor of the house who could be most inconvenienced. If weights and measures officers were to seize documents from the estate agents Bloggins & Co., would the sale of the house be left in limbo? Given that it might take time to establish what action will be taken, and to pursue what might prove a criminal action, the vendor could be left sitting on a house that he is not allowed to sell. Would the vendor be able, for example, to end his contract with the potentially criminalised estate agent and move the sale—lock, stock and barrel—to another agent? If so, how will the seized documents be resecured, so that they may form part of the alternative agent's seller's pack? We must address that practical problem, so that we can protect the vendor. 
 The word ``reasonable'' appears several times in paragraphs 6 to 8. Weights and measures officers are empowered to make reasonable inquiries and to secure documents that are reasonably relevant. What safeguards exist to ensure that reasonableness will not be stretched to its limits by a trading standards officer who, for example, has a grudge against a firm of estate agents whom he failed to convict for reasons that we have discussed? How will ``reasonableness'' be defined? I can find no definition of it in this context. 
 Under section 7—and, indeed, under section 6—weights and measures officers who have seized documents are obliged to 
inform the person from whom they are seized. 
Again, that person is most likely to be an estate agent, but there seems to be no requirement for the weights and measures officer to inform the vendor of the house. Surely the vendor should have an equal right to know that there is a potential problem with the sale of the house. A particularly unscrupulous estate agent—if such a person exists—could choose not to inform the vendor that he was the subject of an investigation by a weights and measures department, and that the documents that formed part of the seller's pack had been seized. The vendor could be under the impression that the estate agent was marketing the house, and wondering why no callers are viewing it, only to discover that marketing had technically been suspended because an investigation was under way. The Bill should surely require that the vendor be notified of any seizure of documents or action against an estate agent. I am surprised that I can find no reference to such a requirement. 
 Paragraph 7(4) states: 
 The powers of an officer under this paragraph may be exercised by him only at a reasonable hour and on production (if required) of his credentials. 
Again, there is the question of the definition of reasonableness. Reasonable hours as kept by the Under-Secretary might be rather different from those kept by the estate agent Bloggins & Co. Can the Under-Secretary provide more detail on what constitutes reasonable hours? 
 This is a long schedule with many technical and, if I may say so, vague references. I have asked a mere soupccon of the many questions that practitioners will ask themselves when faced with this terminology. Given the time and effort that the Under-Secretary has spent on fashioning what he sees as foolproof legislation, I trust that he will be able to answer my questions immediately and off the top of his head, without referring to any notes that might be handed to him.

Chris Mullin: As it happens, I could have guessed most of the answers that I have received, because they largely concern matters of common sense.
 One must bear in mind throughout this discussion that the schedule, like the enforcement clause that we have just discussed, is lifted almost entirely from the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, which was introduced by the previous Government. The same questions might therefore have been asked of that Act, although I doubt whether they were. 
 The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked about the circumstances in which paragraph 4(1), which will enable withdrawal of a fixed penalty notice, will be used. It will be used, for example, if a mistake has been made. Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that people sometimes make mistakes? Not everybody corrects their mistakes, of course, but trading standards officers do. He asked whether paragraph 6(4), which enables the seizing of documents, would in such circumstances leave the sale in limbo. In fact, the vendor would not be prejudiced by seizure because copy documents can be made and he could retain his own copy. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked what safeguards exist in terms of the reasonableness of trading standards officers' behaviour. The short answer to that is the British legal system. He asked who is to notify a person whose documents have been seized. That is the estate agent's job, because he has a contractual relationship with the vendor and is therefore liable. The hon. Gentleman also asked what constitutes a reasonable hour for the exercising of an officer's power. Here he is returning to his ``something of the night'' argument, in which he imagines trading standards officers exercising their powers in a gestapo-like fashion at 4 o'clock in the morning. That might happen in west Sussex, but it certainly does not in Sunderland. His guess as to what constitutes a reasonable hour is as good as mine, but I imagine that the English courts might have something to say if officers started bashing down doors at 4 o'clock in the morning. I rest my case.

Tim Loughton: I am glad that the answers were so simple and such a matter of common sense that the Minister still needed to read the notes that were thrust under his nose. That shows that the answers were not obvious. Indeed, they give rise to further questions.
 Of course a sale will not be interrupted, because only copy documents are required—there will not just be one seller's pack. However, the weights and measures officer will, presumably, have taken action either because something in the seller's pack is incorrect, or because something has not been included in it. Could the sale process be restarted for the vendor, seamlessly and straight away? Could it be restarted with the same firm of estate agents, which would then be required simply to insert the missing document or correct the erroneous one? Given the basis of employee or employer responsibility and liability, could the sale continue with the same estate agent even though an employee of that estate agency was the subject of a criminal investigation? There is a potential conflict of interest. If the sale cannot be restarted with the same estate agent, how easily can it be transferred to an alternative firm? 
 For the Minister yet again to dismiss my question in a complacent manner is most unsatisfactory. He tells us that the estate agent is contractually obliged to communicate to the vendor that a sale has been interrupted or suspended—whatever terminology he chooses to accept. Where in the contract is it clearly stated that the estate agent has a contractual duty to inform the vendor of any seizure of documents, any interruption or potential interruption of the sale through the actions of weights and measures officers? We, as laymen, want the answers, but so do technical experts and practitioners in the field. It is not a matter of common sense. There are many details still to be provided. The Minister—solo—did not know the answers. We should approach the questions with rather more seriousness than he has shown.

Chris Mullin: I dealt with all the points head on. The notes that I was struggling to read were my own. They were to remind me of the clauses to which the hon. Gentleman had drawn my attention. He asked whether the sale could continue. Yes, it could, although it is possible that the vendor might have lost confidence in the estate agent if there had been a raid that resulted in documents being taken away. The cause of the raid might have been a complaint from the vendor, which would make it highly likely that he would want to go elsewhere. That is a matter for the vendor to decide.
 The hon. Gentleman asked about the estate agent's duty to inform the vendor in the event that he is investigated. The estate agent has a duty to market the property. He has a duty towards the vendor from the moment an agreement is reached. A contract does not have to written down in black and white, although there will be terms and conditions that are standard to the profession. The estate agent will be expected to perform his duty to the best of his ability. If he keeps quiet about some relevant consideration, such as the fact that he is, in some way, under investigation, he will be in breach of that duty. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Offences by bodies corporate etc.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 7, line 41, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
 `( ) Any offence under this Part committed by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated as committed by his employer as well as by him, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval, unless the employer shows that he took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from committing that act, or from doing in the course of his employment acts of that description.
 ( ) Any offence under this Part committed by a person as agent for another person with the authority (whether express or implied, and whether precedent or subsequent) of that person shall be treated as having been committed by that other person as well as by him.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60.

Tim Loughton: Amendment No. 46 refers to clause 11, which is about offences by bodies corporate. The Government have tabled amendments on similar lines. It refers to a point that I made previously about corporate as opposed to employee liability, and it seeks to clarify the position of the relationship between the employee and employer as regards such offences.
 We believe that the wording in the Bill, which we want replaced with that in the Government amendments, seems to place too heavy an onus on the employee as the responsible party. Our wording reflects the balance more appropriately. Only if the employee acted outside the course of his duty, as a rogue trader—a rogue estate agent—would he be likely to be first in the line of fire. 
 I commend the amendments because I believe that the new wording creates a better balance between the employer and employee. Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether the employee would be prosecuted if an offence were committed only if he acted outside his course of duty, as a rogue trader?

Chris Mullin: Clause 11 deals with offences by corporate bodies. Subsections (1) and (2) provide that when an offence is committed due to the act or default of an employee of a business, or of an officer of the business, it will be possible to take out proceedings against the employee, the officer, the employer or indeed all of them depending on the circumstances of the case. For the purposes of the Bill, ``officer'' includes a director, manager, company secretary or similar. Subsections (4) and (5) set out similar provisions with regard to co-operatives and partnerships.
 Amendment No. 46 is in two parts. The first would provide that, when an employee of a company was responsible for committing an offence, it should be presumed that both the employee and the company were guilty, unless the company could demonstrate that safeguards designed to prevent such offences from occurring were in place. 
 That limb of the amendment is unnecessary, because the employer will already be the responsible person as a consequence of clause 15(2). In effect, that means that the employer is responsible for actions taken by an employee. However, the defence in clause 6(1) would apply if the employer could show that the precautionary steps described in the amendment had been taken. The provisions of the Bill are modelled on similar provisions in the Estate Agents Act 1979, the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 and most consumer protection legislation. That means that estate agents, trading standards officers and the courts are already familiar with the relevant concepts. 
 The second branch of the amendment would provide that when the offence was committed by someone acting as an agent for a person—but with that person's authority—the person would also be liable to be proceeded against. The Bill provides that the penalties for breaching those duties apply only to the person responsible for marketing the property in question. That may be the seller, someone acting as the seller's agent or both of them if, for example, the seller is engaged in marketing his or her own home as well as using the services of an estate agent. 
 Individuals who market their own homes without the services of an estate agent will be responsible for their own actions. In cases when a person acting as an estate agent is responsible for marketing, it will be up to the agent to ensure that the seller's pack obligations are complied with, as he will bear the consequences if they are not. If, therefore, an estate agent were deliberately to market a property with a defective pack because, say, the seller asked him to do so, the agent would be liable to any resultant proceedings under the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Those proceedings would not involve the seller who had put him up to committing the offence. To seek to do so would cut right across the concept of responsibility set out in clause 2. However, an individual might be guilty of an offence under other legislation, if it could be proved that he or she aided, abetted, counselled or procured a breach of the law. 
 Under our proposals, the duty on estate agents is clear. They are for the most part responsible professionals who will abide by the law and not risk losing their livelihood by colluding in breaches of it. I hope that my explanation has been helpful. 
 Government amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 all make drafting changes intended to make the clause easier to understand. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 46 and to accept the Government amendments.

Tim Loughton: I know that the Committee is keen to make progress. I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, and note the Government amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: I should point out—I am sure that the Committee is aware of it—that I have agreed with the usual channels that we shall sit today until 7.30 pm. If the adjournment is moved at or before that time, the Committee will rise and sit next on Thursday morning. However, if the adjournment has not been moved by 7.30 pm, I shall adjourn the Committee for an hour and a half.
 Amendments made: No. 57, in page 7, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert 
`also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'
 No. 58, in page 8, line 3, leave out from `he' to end of line 6 and insert 
`is also guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'
 No. 59, in page 8, line 16, leave out from `he' to `guilty' and insert `is also'. 
 No. 60, in page 8, line 17, at end insert— 
 `(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this Part by virtue of subsection (1), (2) or (5) may be proceeded against and punished whether or not proceedings are also taken against the employer, body corporate or partnership in question.'.
 Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Acting as an estate agent

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 8, line 41, leave out from `Only' to `a' and insert
`a person who in the course of a business is engaged in estate agency work and who has'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 48, in clause 15, page 9, line 18, at end insert
```estate agency work'' has the meaning given by section 1(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1979;'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is worth pausing in order to probe the Government a little further on precisely what they mean by acting as an estate agent. It is a curious anomaly that anyone can set up as an estate agent; they need no training or experience to deal with what, for many, is the most expensive and important transaction in their lives.
 Most estate agents are covered by one or more of the professional bodies and will have had extensive training; many will have had many years' experience and be able to handle such matters with a great deal of professionalism and the requisite judgment. However, cowboy agents, with no experience or training, can set up a stall overnight. They may be covered by section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979, but that deals only with ethical matters and not with minimum standards of competence. It would be interesting to know whether the Government believe that the Bill should impose minimum standards of competence. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to make buying and selling of houses quicker and more efficient. The cowboys are precisely the sort of people who ought to be rooted out. 
 I wish to probe the Government also on exactly what the Bill covers. For example, does it cover firms or individuals who are not estate agents but who have set themselves up to handle a particular sale and who then subcontract the work to an estate agent? In such circumstances, the firm or individual that started the process would be liable for producing the seller's pack, but if they were not skilled in the work of estate agency, how would they know whether the seller's pack was complete in all particulars? It would be useful if the Government were able to give us some idea of their thinking. I shall let the Minister reply before saying any more.

Nick Raynsford: Clause 14 identifies who is to be regarded as a person acting as an estate agent for the seller of a residential property. The amendments would replace the definition of
an individual, body corporate or partnership with a place of business in England and Wales 
with the definition of someone engaged in ``estate agency work'', as set out in the Estate Agents Act 1979. I understand the motives that have led to the amendments, but, although the definition of an estate agent in clause 14 draws on the definition of estate agency work used in the 1979 Act, for several practical reasons it is not appropriate to use that definition in the Bill. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman hears the explanation he will accept it. 
 In considering why the 1979 Act definition is not appropriate for the Bill, we need to remind ourselves of the link between marketing and the requirement to provide a seller's pack. First, the 1979 Act definition includes several other actions by estate agents that do not involve marketing. It could include acting for a buyer, which would not come within the ambit of the Bill. It could also include acts preparatory to the marketing of a property, which might even include the preparation of a seller's pack. Both those activities do not relate to marketing and are therefore outside the scope of the Bill. 
 Secondly, the 1979 Act definition omits several situations that we would want to include in the scope of the Bill. For example, section 1(2)(a) specifies that the Act does not apply to things done 
in the course of his profession by a practising solicitor or a person employed by him. 
However, under the new provision it will be possible for a solicitor to prepare a seller's pack. Indeed, it is likely that some solicitors will be inclined to become involved in a range of services, so that they can provide a seamless service to customers. While solicitors' property shops are not yet as common in England and Wales as they are in Scotland, we believe that their numbers may increase as a result of the business opportunities offered by the seller's pack. 
 Clause 14 contains a definition of estate agency work that we have developed to be appropriate to the Bill. It draws on and is close to the definition in the Estate Agents Act 1979, but it also reflects the requirements of the Bill. I realise that there might be some virtue in maintaining a single definition for the same profession in the 1979 Act and the Homes Bill. However, the definition that we have used makes it abundantly clear to estate agents which of their activities might cause the obligations under the Bill to apply. There is nothing confusing about the definition, which closely echoes the definition in the 1979 Act, but which is preferable in the context of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The National Association of Estate Agents is worried by the two different definitions. Will the Minister explain more precisely why the definition under section 1(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 could not have been used in the Bill? It would have made matters simpler for everyone involved in the estate agency business and for trading standards officials trying to enforce the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: As I pointed out, the definition in the 1979 Act includes several activities that do not come within the ambit of the Bill. To include them would be confusing, because it might imply a potential liability with respect to an offence. In fact we have carefully avoided that. For example, section 1(1)(a) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 mentions acting
with a view to . . . effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to acquire 
a property. The hon. Gentleman's example, which he gave in an earlier discussion, of an estate agent acting perfectly properly within the ambit of estate agency work, would not come under the Bill. That is why the distinction is necessary. 
 As to the hon. Gentleman's argument that estate agents should be licensed, the Government, like their predecessor, do not favour regulation except where it is absolutely necessary. The Department of Trade and Industry is keeping an open mind on whether estate agents should be formally licensed. At present, the Department is not convinced that that would deliver a significant increase in the level of consumer protection. The Director General of Fair Trading already has powers to act against estate agents who breach the requirements of the Estate Agents Act 1979 and he has shown that he is prepared to use them where justified. 
 It would be helpful if I clarified a point that was twice raised on 18 January by the hon. Member for Cotswold. It concerns the position of an estate agent who introduces a client seeking to buy a property to another estate agent who is marketing a property, or to a seller. I have taken further advice. Where an estate agent acting for a potential buyer seeks to introduce him to another of his clients who is trying to sell a property, the agent will have to have a seller's pack in his possession. The requirement to have a pack will be by virtue of the fact that the estate agent is acting for the seller rather than because of the business relationship with the buyer. So where an estate agent acting for a buyer seeks to effect an introduction to a seller for whom the agent also acts, there will have to be a seller's pack. 
 However, an estate agent who acts only for the potential buyer is not required to have a seller's pack as he is not marketing anything nor is he acting on instructions from the seller. I hope that that clarifies the matter. The hon. Gentleman will now be aware of the distinction. I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight on that important matter, not least for the National Association of Estate Agents, who will be able to read our proceedings in the Official Report. 
 It is a common occurrence for more than one agent to be instructed by a seller to market the same property, a situation that is known as multiple agencies. Once the Bill comes into force, each agent so instructed will be required to have a copy of the seller's pack in his possession. That is logical. 
 However, the National Association of Estate Agents has raised the circumstance where an agent acts solely as a sub-agent for another and therefore has no relationship with the seller, that being solely the responsibility of the main agent. In such circumstances, it would be excessively onerous to require the sub-agent to have a seller's pack. Therefore, where the marketing is carried out by the main agent through sub-agents, the agent would have the obligation to hold the seller's pack at all times without the requirement applying to all sub-agents. That seems a practical and sensible way forward. I hope that it will comfort those worried about how the obligations of the Bill will apply on that complex issue.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister. He always answers in a concise and helpful way. I shall probe him further about two aspects.
 Does the Minister think that clause 14 will catch everyone who purports to be an estate agent? Will it catch the rogue person, who sets himself up as an estate agent overnight, and simply puts up a board stating that he is a house seller? Will it catch the person who is open for whatever business, house selling being one of many activities? Will the clause catch the trader who is not normally recognised as an estate agent? 
 We have talked about the draconian sanctions under the Bill, but what if one happens to be the poor, unfortunate vendor caught up by an unregistered estate agent? It could be a catastrophic experience. The Government should keep an open mind. If it appears that one or two people are providing a less than professional service because they are not registered with any of the professional bodies, it would be reasonable to consider revisiting the question of whether it should be compulsory to be registered as an estate agent. It is a serious matter that concerns the largest transaction that someone is likely to make in their life. We do not want untrained people acting for sellers and buyers of houses. It will not do the estate agency profession or its image any good, and it will provide a lurking danger to the general public. Sales may go wrong rarely, but when they do, they will go wrong with a vengeance, and those most important transactions will become much more difficult and expensive.

Nick Raynsford: I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman the comfort for which he is looking. Clause 14 will catch the sort of rogue traders that he describes if they market a property for a seller. It will not catch rogue traders acting as estate agents on behalf of a buyer, because it is concerned only with the process of marketing properties. It will be a complete answer to the problem of unqualified people, who are likely to deliver a poor service, setting themselves up as rogue estate agents. That is a separate issue, and I shall return to it in a moment.
 The provision will cover any individual body corporate or partnership that markets properties and has a place of business in England and Wales. That is a much broader definition that will catch rogue traders. I do not want to detail circumstances in which they will not be caught. Of course, they will not be caught if they have premises outside England and Wales, for the simple reason that there is no enforcement mechanism without the complicated arrangement of a reciprocal procedure with Scotland. Anyone who sets up his premises in Scotland is badly placed to market properties in England and Wales, so we do not think that that is a serious issue, although it might technically be seen as a loophole. 
 I was asked whether we should revisit the issue of the licensing of estate agents. I made it clear that, although the Government have no current plans to proceed with such licensing, we have a genuinely open mind. We are conscious of the extent of the work that the National Association of Estate Agents has carried out to raise standards in the profession, and of the representations that we have received on the issue. We prefer the voluntary route where possible, but we recognise that there is sometimes a need to take action to protect the public interest. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold will be reassured that we will keep an open mind on the matter. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I love the image of the Minister as the Minister with the light touch. Time will tell whether he fulfils that criterion. I am not sure that he will do so with the enactment of the Bill but, be that as it may, his response was helpful and courteous, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 25 January at fifteen minutes to Ten o'clock.